looking at OPR across events

[Bryce2471]

Is it easier for a given team to get a high OPR at stacked event than a softer one?

I think that assist points being the first sort in standings after qualification points, forces good teams to work with their partners. Even if it means that the alliance wont score as many points.

I also think that assist points being awarded in the 0 10 30 order gives an advantage to teams who are going to highly competitive events.

I'm curious to hear what other CD users think.

[Navid Shafa]

Originally Posted by Bryce2471

Is it easier for a given team to get a high OPR at stacked event than a softer one?

Is it easier? I'm not sure we can say definitively, because there are quite a few variables in this game. The big dynamic trade-off:

• You can score more points with less defense on you.
• You can score more points when you have strong partners.

It becomes very event dependent, as well as schedule dependent.

Originally Posted by Bryce2471

I think that assist points being the first sort in standings after qualification points, forces good teams to work with their partners. Even if it means that the alliance wont score as many points.

Absolutely. Many of the powerhouses could complete quick single bot cycles. However, a combination of seeding rules, point maximization and slow ball-returns certainly promotes more assisting in general.

Originally Posted by Bryce2471

I also think that assist points being awarded in the 0 10 30 order gives an advantage to teams who are going to highly competitive events.

A good match schedule that allows for more triple assists can certainly affect a team's seeding and tie-breaking ability. It also makes a notable difference in World OPR/CCWM.

*BTW, Congrats last weekend! Looking forward to seeing you at District Champs.

[Michael Hill]

I think OPR is as worthless statistic in this game. It works ok games where there is a lot of individual contribution, not so much with teamwork. 2013 was a great year for OPR. 2012 wasn't so bad either, but 2014 is not a good year for OPR.

[Navid Shafa]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

I think OPR is as worthless statistic in this game. It works ok games where there is a lot of individual contribution, not so much with teamwork. 2013 was a great year for OPR. 2012 wasn't so bad either, but 2014 is not a good year for OPR.

I'd have to strongly disagree. OPR and CCWM is certainly better some years compared to others, that I won't argue. After watching Central Illinois, I'm guessing you are dissapointed at the numbers you saw at the event or the rating your team has right now. A lot of Central Illinois teams saw rather low OPR/CCWM values, because defense was brutal there. I'm sure you can attest to that. If you are trying to compare teams from CI to other events, you are going to be disappointed.

Why not take a look at the database here.
I think you'd be surprised at how well of a job it's doing as a whole, I certainly am. Take a look at some of the other events.

If you still disagree, I understand and respect your opinion. That being said, I'd love to see any other quantitative metrics you are using to rank and evaluate teams, I'm rather obsessed with these kinds of things.

[Michael Hill]

Originally Posted by Navid Shafa

I'd have to strongly disagree. OPR and CCWM is certainly better some years compared to others, that I won't argue. After watching Central Illinois, I'm guessing you are dissapointed at the numbers you saw at the event or the rating your team has right now. A lot of Central Illinois teams saw rather low OPR/CCWM values, because defense was brutal there. I'm sure you can attest to that. If you are trying to compare teams from CI to other events, you are going to be disappointed.

Why not take a look at the database here.
I think you'd be surprised at how well of a job it's doing as a whole, I certainly am. Take a look at some of the other events.

If you still disagree, I understand and respect your opinion. That being said, I'd love to see any other quantitative metrics you are using to rank and evaluate teams, I'm rather obsessed with these kinds of things.

To be honest, I haven't even looked at where my team is. The data just doesn't lend itself to being useful in this type of game. If you're using OPR for anything like picklist, I think you'll find yourself disappointed. I would also say that trying to validate OPR with ranks at regionals is also a useless statistic (why not just go by rank then if your OPR matches?). When you have a game that hinges on another team's ability to complete tasks, OPR will not be a good indicator of performance.

[Navid Shafa]

If you haven't looked, how do you know it's bad?

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

If you're using OPR for anything like picklist, I think you'll find yourself disappointed.

First and most importantly, I would never make a picklist solely off of quantitative metrics, nor would I want to pick teams based on Pit-scouting and my assessment after watching that robot play. A good combination of both is what makes holistic scouting so valuable.

In almost every FIRST game, a high seeded captain is looking for a robot that is a strong offensive robot. This is exactly what OPR could assist you in finding. You could almost always look at a list of the top teams in OPR and pick one of those.

The second pick is not something you'd want to determine by OPR. Often, you are lucky to find a robot that can play offense, especially at small events or districts. Things like Pit-scouting become extremely important. I'd often look for teams with Multi-Cim gearboxes and strong 6WD or 8WD bases and drivers that know how to use them in matches effectively.

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

I would also say that trying to validate OPR with ranks at regionals is also a useless statistic (why not just go by rank then if your OPR matches?).

I've never done this, nor I would attempt to do so. A team's rank in seeding quite often does not directly correlate with robot performance, there are many factors that impact the tournament rankings. I certainly would not expect OPR to exactly match the seeding. Look back to 2010 and 2012's seeding systems, the seeding was greatly impacted not only by your partners but the opposing alliance. Perhaps if we had an extremely large sample size these kinds of ranking comparisons would become relevant...

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

When you have a game that hinges on another team's ability to complete tasks, OPR will not be a good indicator of performance.

This is exactly why I brought up CCWM before. This is still in my opinion accurately determining personal performance considering a mixture of different alliances and compositions. If we notice a distinct amount of parity between OPR and CCWM we know that a team has done more or less of the scoring for their alliance. It can also help narrow out teams that ranked extremely high or low, due to really strong or really poor match schedules. i.e. A team with a large CCWM value is doing the bulk of the scoring in general for their alliance.

Since you haven't taken a look at it yet, here is some information from your event, Central Illinois:

Spoiler for Qualification Rankings:

1 525
2 1736
3 1986
4 1806
5 1756
6 1747
7 171
8 2081
9 167
10 2481
11 967
12 2704
13 2451
14 4256
15 1208
16 4143
17 2039
18 4212
19 3138
20 2022
21 2164
22 1764
23 3352
24 4196
25 3284
26 1091
27 4786
28 292
29 1288
30 1094
31 648
32 2040
33 4213
34 4296
35 4655
36 4330
37 5041
38 1739
39 4329
40 2194

Spoiler for Rank by OPR:

1 525
2 1986
3 1806
4 1756
5 4256
6 1747
7 1736
8 167
9 2081
10 171
11 2451
12 4143
13 967
14 1208
15 2039
16 1288
17 3284
18 292
19 648
20 5041
21 2481
22 4212
23 3138
24 1094
25 2704
26 1764
27 4213
28 2040
29 1091
30 2164
31 3352
32 4330
33 2022
34 4196
35 4655
36 4786
37 2194
38 4329
39 1739
40 4296

Spoiler for Rank By CCWM:

1 1986
2 525
3 1806
4 1747
5 1736
6 1756
7 171
8 2081
9 2481
10 3284
11 2451
12 967
13 167
14 1208
15 4143
16 2704
17 4256
18 2039
19 4213
20 4330
21 3138
22 1091
23 1288
24 3352
25 4212
26 2164
27 2022
28 5041
29 4196
30 1764
31 4786
32 4655
33 1094
34 2040
35 4296
36 292
37 2194
38 4329
39 648
40 1739

They look pretty accurate to me, especially at the upper end. I would say both these do a much better job of ranking robot performance than the seeding wouldn't you?

Since you haven't got a chance to look at OPR for the events or your team, I posted the link earlier, but I made a page for you with data just from Central Illinois here: Central Illinois OPR/CCWM with Filtering. Enjoy!

[Ben Martin]

On the subject of OPR/CCWM--has anyone had good success with using them as a forecasting tool for this year for "end of qualifications" standings from an earlier point in time (i.e. end of last full qualification match day)? I know many people feel that the statistic is trash with regards to being a performance indicator, but I have heard of several elite teams using these statistics for forecasting in prior years.

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Ben Martin

On the subject of OPR/CCWM--has anyone had good success with using them as a forecasting tool for this year for "end of qualifications" standings from an earlier point in time (i.e. end of last full qualification match day)? I know many people feel that the statistic is trash with regards to being a performance indicator, but I have heard of several elite teams using these statistics for forecasting in prior years.

Ben, I saw some OPR based calculations at our first District event, and wouldn't trust them 100% for all matches, but as a guide to how difficult a match is going to be and/or a comparison of one alliances strength to another, they're definitely useful.

The problem with using OPR in a game like Aerial Assist is that there are some machines that can contribute greatly to an alliances performance but don't necessarily always score a lot of points. Take for example the 'ideal' third robot on an alliance, one that can inbound and collect effectively, but may not score often, if ever. If this robot is rarely paired with someone that can score, their strengths aren't necessarily reflected in the match score, which trickles down to their OPR.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

I think OPR is as worthless statistic in this game. It works ok games where there is a lot of individual contribution, not so much with teamwork. 2013 was a great year for OPR. 2012 wasn't so bad either, but 2014 is not a good year for OPR.

Ideally, this is exactly the type of game you would want to use a OPR or CCWM metric for. With a variety of potential roles within an alliance, a team's contribution to offense or winning a match isn't always obvious to more traditional scouting. However, I don't think a single event comes anywhere near the sample size required to normalize the data, especially given the alliance driven nature of the game. Games with very discreet roles are much easier to get a normalized/accurate OPR, but OPR is less useful in those years because they're much easier to get meaningful data from scouting. District model teams, or any teams who compete in 3+ events and 50+ matches, may have enough input data for OPR to be useful, but in-season improvement (of both them and the average level of play) once again throws a wrench in how predictive OPR will be for future contributions.

[Matt_Boehm_329]

Which OPR are we talking about, the one with or without penalties? The one with penalties I feel is hyper inflated as some of the top OPR's have more than 25% of their scores in penalty points. While it matches well with seeding and the other metric (because penalty points are big this year), I don't think it shows the actual power of a team. (thebluealliance uses OPR with penalties included I believe)

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Matt_Boehm_329

Which OPR are we talking about, the one with or without penalties? The one with penalties I feel is hyper inflated as some of the top OPR's have more than 25% of their scores in penalty points. While it matches well with seeding and the other metric (because penalty points are big this year), I don't think it shows the actual power of a team. (thebluealliance uses OPR with penalties included I believe)

Unfortunately, removing awarded foul points from the final score requires using Twitter data, which is incomplete and may contain errors or redundancies. With that caveat in mind, I've posted the Twitter-data-based unpenalized final score in the thread linked below. I think Ed Law's OPR spreadsheet also uses Twitter data to remove awarded foul points, but I haven't been able yet to find a viewer that can open xlsm files with Excel 2000. Ed graciously made an attempt to create an xls version of his spreadsheet but was unsuccessful.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=127619

[RyanShoff]

Originally Posted by Ether

I haven't been able yet to find a viewer that can open xlsm files with Excel 2000.

LibreOffice opens his spreadsheet fine under Linux. I assume it would work for Windows too.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by RyanShoff

LibreOffice opens his spreadsheet fine under Linux. I assume it would work for Windows too.

Thanks Ryan.

What version of LibreOffice? What Linux distro? You said the spreadsheet opens fine. Do the macros work too?

I know OpenOffice and LibreOffice are not identical, but since I have OpenOffice 3.3-5 installed here under Windows XP Pro SP3, I tried it. It's been loading for about 5 minutes and according to the status bar is only about 15% complete. Not looking good.

I'll put LibreOffice in my Slacko Linux partition and give it a try.

[Matt_Boehm_329]

Ah wow thanks, fantastic data you have there.

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by Ether

Unfortunately, removing awarded foul points from the final score requires using Twitter data, which is incomplete and may contain errors or redundancies.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=127619

My spreadsheet automatically ignores the redundancies. If a match is replayed, it will use the later match and ignore the original match. Also I only use the twitter data for a district/regional event if there are no match data missing from that event.